Author Topic: Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??  (Read 75112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline iMo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4675
  • Country: nr
  • It's important to try new things..
..
This is just plain wrong.
..
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.

"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
How is flat and solid copper electrical heater reheating its cooled circle?

I do not understand the question. Can you elaborate ?

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..

a) Electrical energy is electrical power integrated over time.
b) Electrical power is the product of electrical current and electrical potential.
c) Electrical current is a stream of charged particles so electrons in this case.

All of the above are well agreed facts.

Since you can only have an electrical current in the conductor (copper pipes in Derek's experiment) it means energy travels through wire.
There is no electrical current through air thus no electrical energy can be delivered to Lamp trough that 1m air gap.

The small current that is seen through the lamp in the first few ns after the switch is closed is due to redistribution of charges inside the conductor.
The line capacitance is being charged.
while charging a capacitor energy flows in the capacitor and it is being stored there and it is not flowing through a capacitor. The displacement current is not a real current is imaginary so just a mathematical construct. Maxwell (a mathematician) came up with this before anyone knew such things as electrons exist.

Also individual electrons inside the wire do not travel at those low speeds and those small speeds you mentioned are the average.
So when you connect a wire in parallel with a charge capacitor (basically short circuiting the capacitor)  the electron that enters the wire from the charged plate of the capacitor will not travel much but at the speed of light an electron from the other side of the wire will enter the other plate of the capacitor.
This electron wave travels close to the speed of light through a conductor and while the electron that enters the wire is not the same with the one that enters the wire the energy travels through the wire.

And yes the stream of electrons will create a magnetic field outside the wire but that is conservative (meaning that all that energy you put in to create that magnetic field will be recovered when you disconnect the wire).

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00

How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?

Transmitter antenna is one plate of the capacitor and the receiver is the the other plate of the same capacitor.


This is just plain wrong.

Look up near field and far field:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field


Quote
Far-field E (electric) and B (magnetic) field strength decreases as the distance from the source increases, resulting in an inverse-square law for the radiated power intensity of electromagnetic radiation. By contrast, near-field E and B strength decrease more rapidly with distance: the radiative field decreases by the inverse-distance squared, the reactive field by an inverse-cube law, resulting in a diminished power in the parts of the electric field by an inverse fourth-power and sixth-power, respectively. The rapid drop in power contained in the near-field ensures that effects due to the near-field essentially vanish a few wavelengths away from the radiating part of the antenna.

The field in and around a capacitor is near field.  That's not how energy is coupled from transmitter to receiver.

Based on your previous posts, you don't seem to believe that radio waves are electromagnetic radiation.

In the heads of those energy-flows-in-the-wire people, there was no transmission of electromagnetic energy before the invention of the capacitor and the wire.

There should be a law to forbid them from getting near a light switch.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
In the heads of those energy-flows-in-the-wire people, there was no transmission of electromagnetic energy before the invention of the capacitor and the wire.

There should be a law to forbid them from getting near a light switch.

Capacitors existed forever.

Light switches will not have been needed if the electrical energy did not traveled through wire.
Electrical energy also travels through the incandescent lamp filament else the filament could not get to 3000K and emit infrared and some visible light photons.

It is absurd to even think electrical energy does not travel through wires as if that was the case wires will have not been needed. You just point the battery in the direction of the lamp and lamp will be illuminated.

Offline Naej

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: fr
..
This is just plain wrong.
..
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.

"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
Yes. Also it travels through a conductor. Electron's potential energy is huge, remember that 1V=12000 Kelvin, so their tiny drift velocity has almost no impact whatsoever.
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).
If you listen closely, you can hear Richard Feynman yelling hoarsely.
I think i got that from Conrad Ranzan. He probly got it from JG Williamson.
The 2 photons cancel each other's em radiation in the near field & in the far field.
it is this that makes a neutrino such a slippery customer.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
You may have noticed that I always use the term "electrical energy" and not just generic energy unless I forgot do do so.

There are two electrical energy storage devices the capacitor and the inductor.

An ideal capacitor and ideal inductor can store energy indefinitely. The real ones have leakage.

You get DC voltage at the terminals of a charged capacitor. An AC rated capacitor is not polarized but if you disconnect it from the circuit you will measure a DC voltage.

A constant electrical current traveling through a conductor will result in a constant magnetic field and if the conductor has any resistance you have thermal energy loss.
This thermal energy loss is the electromagnetic radiation that many of you mention. The frequency of this will be in the THz region as it will be infrared to even visible if we are talking about the lamp filament that is also a wire.
So you have a DC voltage supply like a charged capacitor that produces a DC current when electrical energy travels through the wire and all this is radiated as electromagnetic energy somewhere in the THz region (broad spectrum) if wire has any resistance.

In this isolated system if you start with say 1Wh of electrical energy stored in the capacitor and you close the switch all energy will end up radiated as electromagnetic radiation. There will be temporarily energy stored in the magnetic field around the wire and line capacity but all of this is conservative so will end up radiated from the wire/lamp. Wire also has some mass so there will be some thermal storage effect but if you leave the system cool back to starting temperature all energy is radiated all that 1Wh you started with.

Now if the system is not isolated say you have a strong magnet near the wire then that magnet may move either attracted towards the wire or pushed away so there is some work done and that energy needed to do that work will not be radiated. So say 0.01Wh worth of work is done when moving the magnet some distance then only 0.99Wh will end up radiated.

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 621
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
Electonists are the opposite – we have one at present (me) – but praps in the end everyone will be an electonist.
Does your theory predict any testable difference from 'conventional' theory? 
A good test would be to measure the speed of electricity along a plain bar, & to compare that to the speed of electricity along a threaded bar.
A threaded bar should be slower by the extra distance up & over the threads.
Are you sure you are not just looking at a different perspective of the same underlying process (e.g. Matrix mechanics vs Wave function vs Path Integral Formulation in Quantum Theory)?
Yes i am sure. But i don’t know what thems things are.
I'm not really seeking any real answers to such questions, but it is along the same line of thoughts as "electrons pushing each other" vs "electrons interacting via a field". The different between "each elementary charge reaching out across all of space to give each other nudges" vs "charges moving based on the local gradient of the field". Does one of does models represent the underlying physical reality, or is the reality completely different?
Electrons pushing is the same thing as interacting via a field. Both are via a field.
But some old (electron) electricity pundits try to wiggle out of their impossible pushing scenario by invoking very long range interactions. Nope, it duznt help. Still impossible, koz electrons have mass. If electrons didn’t have any mass then pushing would work ok.
For me, magnetism is key decider that makes me think the field view is the more real of the two - static charges pushing/pulling on each other is fine and for the most part equivalent to fields, but making charges experience a force at right angles to their direction of travel requires something more.
Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop explain that charge is what remains when 2 TEM slabs of Heaviside energy current propagate in contrary directions.
In other words there is no such  thing as charge. It is all em, both charge & magnetism existing together at all times.
Being dyslexic and having no real concept of "left handedness" vs "right handedness" makes this doubly hard for me - how come the universe obeys "Flemings Left Hand Rule"? In physics is seems to be just the nature of things because matrix multiplication is not commutative, but it also echos on through things like "charge conjugation parity symmetry" and CP violations. :-//
I don’t understand that stuff. But left hand rule & right hand rule are just math conventions, not a part of nature.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2022, 10:27:30 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
..
This is just plain wrong.
..
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.

"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
Be careful! some here are very attached to the idea that electrons carry their potential energy around with them somehow. They believe that an electron in a wire at -20V is somehow measurable different to an electron at 0V, because it has 'more potential energy' and can do more work.

And a smaller number are very firm in the belief that electrical energy only flows in conductors, to the point that they will argue energy can't pass through a capacitor - with logic along the lines of energy is volts x amps, and because an electron cannot pass through a capacitor, then no energy can be transferred. Then then in an act of cognitive dissidence use inductors and capacitors in a transmission line model to 'explain' how things can be coupled and how energy was transferred across the 1m gap in Veritasium's experiment.

The opposing view, that that gradient of the electric field along the electron's path that determines how much work an electron can do, which infers that the energy is transferred though the field and not by the charge in the wire, doesn't get a look in...

« Last Edit: June 30, 2022, 10:38:28 pm by hamster_nz »
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
Being dyslexic and having no real concept of "left handedness" vs "right handedness" makes this doubly hard for me - how come the universe obeys "Flemings Left Hand Rule"? In physics is seems to be just the nature of things because matrix multiplication is not commutative, but it also echos on through things like "charge conjugation parity symmetry" and CP violations. :-//
I don’t understand that stuff. But left hand rule & right hand rule are just math conventions, not a part of nature.
How dyslexic me wishes this was true, but sadly it isn't.
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
Be careful! some here are very attached to the idea that electrons carry their potential energy around with them somehow. They believe that an electron in a wire at +20V is somehow measurable different to an electron at 0V, because it has 'more potential energy' and can do more work.

And a smaller number are very firm in the belief that electrical energy only flows in conductors, to the point that they will argue energy can't pass through a capacitor - with logic along the lines of energy is volts x amps, and because an electron cannot pass through a capacitor, then no energy can be transferred. Then then in an act of cognitive dissidence use inductors and capacitors in a transmission line model to 'explain' how things can be coupled and how energy was transferred across the 1m gap in Veritasium's experiment.

The opposing view, that that gradient of the electric field along the electron's path that determines how much work an electron can do, which infers that the energy is transferred though the field and not by the charge in the wire, doesn't get a look in...
[/quote]

I will suggest reading my last post https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/electroboom-how-right-is-veritasium!-dont-electrons-push-each-other/msg4271941/#msg4271941

There was no energy transferred across the 1m gap other than the small amount of electromagnetic radiation (infrared mostly) that just slightly increased the temperature of the conductor.

You may also want to read my older post still in this thread where I explained what happens if you just move the switch without closing the switch as in that case you still see some energy dissipated by the lamp but that is mechanical energy that to provide to the circuit being converted to electron flow and since there is resistance dissipated as thermal radiation (THz region).
The charged capacitor or rechargeable battery will contain the same amount of energy before you start moving the switch and after so all radiated energy was due to mechanical energy input being converted in to electrical current flow and then wasted as heat (electromagnetic radiation) due to resistance in the circuit.

Offline Naej

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: fr
..
This is just plain wrong.
..
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.

"Electrical energy" does not travel through a conductor. In the conductor the E field is almost zero, and the electrons move or drift in the conductor with speeds like a couple of cm in a second..
Be careful! some here are very attached to the idea that electrons carry their potential energy around with them somehow. They believe that an electron in a wire at -20V is somehow measurable different to an electron at 0V, because it has 'more potential energy' and can do more work.

And a smaller number are very firm in the belief that electrical energy only flows in conductors, to the point that they will argue energy can't pass through a capacitor - with logic along the lines of energy is volts x amps, and because an electron cannot pass through a capacitor, then no energy can be transferred. Then then in an act of cognitive dissidence use inductors and capacitors in a transmission line model to 'explain' how things can be coupled and how energy was transferred across the 1m gap in Veritasium's experiment.

The opposing view, that that gradient of the electric field along the electron's path that determines how much work an electron can do, which infers that the energy is transferred though the field and not by the charge in the wire, doesn't get a look in...
If you deny potential energy, what other forms of energy do you deny?
Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
I will suggest reading my last post https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/electroboom-how-right-is-veritasium!-dont-electrons-push-each-other/msg4271941/#msg4271941

There was no energy transferred across the 1m gap other than the small amount of electromagnetic radiation (infrared mostly) that just slightly increased the temperature of the conductor.
And yet the oscilloscope on Derek's experiment voltage at the bulb before the bulk of the voltage can flow around the full length of the wire/pipe... so it either when along the wire/pipe at faster than light speeds, or the energy went across the 1m gap.

Or I guess you can argue that the experimental method was flawed, because it is inconsistent with your expectations.
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
If you deny potential energy, what other forms of energy do you deny?
Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Does a 10kg bowling ball at 10m above the ground "have" potential energy? Or does it have the potential to gain that energy if you let it fall 10m?

It depends on the definition of 'h' in the gravitational potential energy formula of U=mgh. Height isn't an absolute thing, it is measured between two points.

If I move that bowling ball slightly to the right, where there might be a 10m deep well... has it suddenly gained twice as much potential energy just from me moving it less than a meter? In the formula 'm' and 'g' stays the same, but 'h' has changed because the reference point for the measurement has changed.

Things like how many kJ are in your sandwich (chemical potential energy), or how many megatons of TNT are in your warhead (nuclear potential energy) don't change just because you move your lunchbox by 1m or launch your missile. Some measures like kinetic, electrical and gravitational potential energy depend on what chosen reference for "zero energy" is.

If I am on a train travelling at 100km/h and drop a bowling ball on my foot, does it hurt more than when the train is stopped, even though when the train is in motion the ball is travelling at over 27m/s?

I guess you could chose to use the earth's surface as reference point for kinetic and electrical energy (making the assumption that the Earth is electrically neutral and stationary), and you could use the center of the Earth as your reference point to give a more 'absolute' measure of gravitational potential energy.

That may work for you, unless perhaps you are in the business of launching bowling balls into the sun, in which case they have far more kinetic and potential energy than those calculation would suggest...  :-//

EDIT: on second thoughts, maybe you can establish of what electrically "neutral" is using electrostatic attraction/repulsion, I guess, but would be pretty hard to achieve a useful reference for single digit voltages...
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 12:04:40 am by hamster_nz »
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
And yet the oscilloscope on Derek's experiment voltage at the bulb before the bulk of the voltage can flow around the full length of the wire/pipe... so it either when along the wire/pipe at faster than light speeds, or the energy went across the 1m gap.

Or I guess you can argue that the experimental method was flawed, because it is inconsistent with your expectations.

The result is perfectly correct the explanation and conclusion from what he seen is false as he completely ignores the line capacitance (capacitor is an energy storage device).
In fact he ignores energy storage in all his videos and gets to wrong conclusion because of that.


As I mentioned even if you just move the switch without closing the circuit you change the switch capacitance that will result in current flow (stream of electrons) and since charge reorganises it will affect the lamp and wires connected to it.
But that is mechanical energy that you input in the system by moving the switch contacts in space and it is not energy delivered by the battery.

You will need to put in energy in order to move the switch contacts apart. That mechanical energy is converted in to electrical energy with a part of it charging the battery and another part ending radiated as thermal energy heating the wire due to wire resistance.
When you let go of the switch so that the switch is pulled back to original position by the electric field force and so you again have electron flow this time leaving the battery and also part of it ending up as heat in the wire later all this thermal stored energy is radiated as electromagnetic waves in the infrared spectrum.

Battery or better example charged capacitor will end up with exact same amount of energy it started with and all the mechanical energy you provided ended up as electromagnetic radiated energy maybe even a bit in the visible spectrum if the lamp filament could glow with the amount of input energy (not realistic with moving a small switch with low capacitance).

You will observe the same exact behaviour as in Derek's experiment when he closed the switch (same oscilloscope waveform) if you had a sensitive enough scope to measure that smaller voltage drops.

I also showed the spice simulation with the exact same waveform that Derek got if you remember that.

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
Does a 10kg bowling ball at 10m above the ground "have" potential energy? Or does it have the potential to gain that energy if you let it fall 10m?

It depends on the definition of 'h' in the gravitational potential energy formula of U=mgh. Height isn't an absolute thing, it is measured between two points.

If I move that bowling ball slightly to the right, where there might be a 10m deep well... has it suddenly gained twice as much potential energy just from me moving it less than a meter? In the formula 'm' and 'g' stays the same, but 'h' has changed because the reference point for the measurement has changed.


Yes the 10kg ball at 10m above ground has potential energy relative to that point you selected on the ground same as you can select a different ground in an electric circuit to reverence to.
When moved above the well the potential energy relative to the bottom of the well will be higher than potential energy relative to the ground.
When you drop that ball on the ground that potential energy will end up as heat and maybe some plastic deformation.  There will be twice as much heat if you drop it into the well.  You will also need to put in energy to lifted back to ground level.
 

If I am on a train travelling at 100km/h and drop a bowling ball on my foot, does it hurt more than when the train is stopped, even though when the train is in motion the ball is travelling at over 27m/s?

I guess you could chose to use the earth's surface as reference point for kinetic and electrical energy (making the assumption that the Earth is electrically neutral and stationary), and you could use the center of the Earth as your reference point to give a more 'absolute' measure of gravitational potential energy.

That may work for you, unless perhaps you are in the business of launching bowling balls into the sun, in which case they have far more kinetic and potential energy than those calculation would suggest...  :-//

EDIT: on second thoughts, maybe you can establish of what electrically "neutral" is using electrostatic attraction/repulsion, I guess, but would be pretty hard to achieve a useful reference for single digit voltages...


Yes it will hurt more if the train travels up than if it stands still or travels down (falling towards earth).

Offline Naej

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: fr
If you deny potential energy, what other forms of energy do you deny?
Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Does a 10kg bowling ball at 10m above the ground "have" potential energy? Or does it have the potential to gain that energy if you let it fall 10m?

It depends on the definition of 'h' in the gravitational potential energy formula of U=mgh. Height isn't an absolute thing, it is measured between two points.

If I move that bowling ball slightly to the right, where there might be a 10m deep well... has it suddenly gained twice as much potential energy just from me moving it less than a meter? In the formula 'm' and 'g' stays the same, but 'h' has changed because the reference point for the measurement has changed.

Things like how many kJ are in your sandwich (chemical potential energy), or how many megatons of TNT are in your warhead (nuclear potential energy) don't change just because you move your lunchbox by 1m or launch your missile. Some measures like kinetic, electrical and gravitational potential energy depend on what chosen reference for "zero energy" is.

If I am on a train travelling at 100km/h and drop a bowling ball on my foot, does it hurt more than when the train is stopped, even though when the train is in motion the ball is travelling at over 27m/s?

I guess you could chose to use the earth's surface as reference point for kinetic and electrical energy (making the assumption that the Earth is electrically neutral and stationary), and you could use the center of the Earth as your reference point to give a more 'absolute' measure of gravitational potential energy.

That may work for you, unless perhaps you are in the business of launching bowling balls into the sun, in which case they have far more kinetic and potential energy than those calculation would suggest...  :-//

EDIT: on second thoughts, maybe you can establish of what electrically "neutral" is using electrostatic attraction/repulsion, I guess, but would be pretty hard to achieve a useful reference for single digit voltages...
All energies are relative yes. Including chemical ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation ).
Does it mean you deny all forms of energy exist?
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
Does it mean you deny all forms of energy exist?
Of course not. I am of the view that some forms of energy can be attributed of the thing (e.g. kJ in a sandwich, energy stored in a spring, energy in a capacitor), but other forms of energy cannot be determined without reference to the wider environment or the larger system around it (e.g. a bowling ball on a moving train has different kinetic energy when calculated with reference to the train, or the ground under the train).

Likewise for an electron drifting along in a current carrying wire. It has a small amount of kinetic energy, but my view is how much work that electron can do depends on the electric field outside of the wire.

Take this poorly drawn ASCIIart circuit:
Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +-----
The top battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the top resistor, the bottom battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the bottom resistor. There is zero net current in the center wire, the one connected to GND.

What happens when the middle wire is removed?

Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 |    +--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+
Do the electron leaving the bottom battery's negative terminal suddenly realize that they have to do twice the work (pass through both resistors), so carry twice the energy for the trip? What about those electrons already in transit? Do they use up their energy and stop half way?  This is a problem if you believe that the electrons are responsible for transferring the energy.

Are any of the voltages or currents any different than before? If not, how can the electrons carry more energy?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 03:11:31 am by hamster_nz »
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus

Likewise for an electron drifting along in a current carrying wire. It has a small amount of kinetic energy, but my view is how much work that electron can do depends on the electric field outside of the wire.

Take this poorly drawn ASCIIart circuit:
Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +-----
The top battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the top resistor, the bottom battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the bottom resistor. There is zero net current in the center wire, the one connected to GND.

What happens when the middle wire is removed?

Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm    (A)
 -    \
 |    |
 |    +--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm     (B)
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+
Do the electron leaving the bottom battery's negative terminal suddenly realize that they have to do twice the work (pass through both resistors), so carry twice the energy for the trip? What about those electrons already in transit? Do they stop half way?

Are any of the voltages or currents any different than before?

There is no difference between those two circuits. Due to symmetry no electrons will travel through that middle wire.
As far as that circuit is concerned is like having two batteries in series so 2x the voltage connected to a 20Ohm resistor.

To better see what happens use charged capacitors instead of batteries.
Say each capacitor starts with 300 electrons on one plate and 100 electrons on the opposite plate.

100 electrons will leave the charged plate of capacitor A (the one that started with 300) and get to the plate that has a deficit on capacitor B
The end result will be two discharged capacitors with 200 electrons on each plate.
All that stored energy will end up dissipated on the resistors/wires.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 03:12:40 am by electrodacus »
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: nz
There is no difference between those two circuits. Due to symmetry no electrons will travel through that middle wire. As far as that circuit is concerned is like having two batteries in series so 2x the voltage connected to a 20Ohm resistor.

How about if I twiddle the topology a little, so the circuit is the same but with joined or crossing wires in the center:

Code: [Select]
      +----+         +----+
      |    |         |    |
      |    \         |    \
     ---   /        ---   /
      -    \         -    \
      |    |         |    |
 +----+----+    +---------+
 |    |         |    |
 \    +-->GND   \    +-->GND
 /   ---        /   ---
 \    -         \    -
 |    |         |    |
 +----+         +----+
Once again I'm sure you agree that in either schematic there is no difference in the energy of each electron leaving the lower battery. The currents in each wire and voltages across each element are the same in both circuits.

In the right hand circuit, where the wires are not joined, an electron will do twice as much work as it moves around the circuit, compared to how much work it has to do in the left-hand circuit.
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1858
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
How about if I twiddle the topology a little, so the circuit is the same but with joined or crossing wires in the center:

Code: [Select]
      +----+         +----+
      |    |         |    |
      |    \         |    \
     ---   /        ---   /
      -    \         -    \
      |    |         |    |
 +----+----+    +---------+
 |    |         |    |
 \    +-->GND   \    +-->GND
 /   ---        /   ---
 \    -         \    -
 |    |         |    |
 +----+         +----+
Once again I'm sure you agree that in either schematic there is no difference in the energy of each electron leaving the lower battery. The currents in each wire and voltages across each element are the same in both circuits.

In the right hand circuit, where the wires are not joined, an electron will do twice as much work as it moves around the circuit, compared to how much work it has to do in the left-hand circuit.

:) Your two new circuits are exactly the same as the first two.
Same amount of work is done in both cases.
Say each battery is 10V. The current is the same 1A in both cases as due to symmetry the two will work the same.
You can look at the left one and see them as individual 10V batteries connected to 10Ohm resistors so 1A  or you can look at the one on the right and say 20V (two batteries in series) connected to a 20Ohm resistor again 1A
Total power in both cases is the same 10V * 1A * 2 = 20W  or 20V * 1A = 20W


As for the capacitor instead of battery example you can have the left diagram where you can say 100 electrons from capacitor A will flow in the other plate of the same capacitor and same thing for B
Or you can look at the right diagram where 100 electrons from capacitor B flows into opposite plate of capacitor A trough the two resistors and 100 electrons from capacitor A flow directly in the capacitor B plate.
In both cases you end up with 200 electrons on all 4 capacitor plates.

Offline Naej

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: fr
Does it mean you deny all forms of energy exist?
Of course not. I am of the view that some forms of energy can be attributed of the thing (e.g. kJ in a sandwich, energy stored in a spring, energy in a capacitor), but other forms of energy cannot be determined without reference to the wider environment or the larger system around it (e.g. a bowling ball on a moving train has different kinetic energy when calculated with reference to the train, or the ground under the train).

Likewise for an electron drifting along in a current carrying wire. It has a small amount of kinetic energy, but my view is how much work that electron can do depends on the electric field outside of the wire.

Take this poorly drawn ASCIIart circuit:
Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +-----
The top battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the top resistor, the bottom battery is supplying electrons (and power) to the bottom resistor. There is zero net current in the center wire, the one connected to GND.

What happens when the middle wire is removed?

Code: [Select]

 +----+
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 |    +--> GND
 |    |
 |    \
---   /  10 ohm
 -    \
 |    |
 +----+
Do the electron leaving the bottom battery's negative terminal suddenly realize that they have to do twice the work (pass through both resistors), so carry twice the energy for the trip? What about those electrons already in transit? Do they use up their energy and stop half way?  This is a problem if you believe that the electrons are responsible for transferring the energy.

Are any of the voltages or currents any different than before? If not, how can the electrons carry more energy?
With the conventions you chose, the energy is carried in the exterior wires and stop at the end of the resistor.
The situation doesn't change when you remove the wire, so there is no problem (of course).

And if you twiddle the topology it's also the same, because you change neither the potential nor the currents.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1924
  • Country: fi
How is flat and solid copper electrical heater reheating its cooled circle?

I do not understand the question. Can you elaborate ?

Reheating is tuned by underlying energy and easily visualized with thermal camera.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Triplett-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6171
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
(If you want to do text graphics, Unicode Box Drawing glyphs – ┌ ─ ┬ ┐ │ ├ ┼ ┤ └ ┴ ┘ ╔ ═ ╦ ╗ ║ ╠ ╬ ╣ ╚ ╩ ╝ ╪ ╫ ╧ ╤ ╢ ╟ ╞ ╡ – work fine here, and are also found in code page 473 (old DOS, Windows).  There are also diagonals – ╲ ╱ ╳ – and other useful stuff in Unicode, but that subset of box drawing glyphs tends to be very widely supported across environments.  Here, you'll want to use either [tt]...[/tt] or [code]...[/code] around the graphics, so that the output uses a fixed-width font.)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf